-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Using the name of Zeppelin to refer to some lowly "blimps" is akin to calling your compact car with a tow hitch a "tractor-trailer".
Incidentally, at least 2 of those K-class naval blimps were STILL in use in the US up until a decade or so ago (regularly hovering over sporting events), and may still be operational. There was also one smaller navy model operating in the Midwest, while the larger K-class blimps were normally stationed on the US east and west coasts. There are now several new blimps in service as well, slightly smaller than the USN ones, one of which flew over my area about a year ago. I was confused when I first saw it, because it didn't quite match the characteristic shape I'm accustomed to seeing over the course of a lifetime.
If the balloon structure was large enough it could be feasible to mount some sort of external cat walks on the outside to mount heavy machine guns or even some small AAA, in theory an airship would be most vulnerable to attack from above but that can be mitigated by flying higher. More guns can be mounted on the top of the balloon for planes that do attack from above
As for practicality I don't see it being a very good bomber, since it probably can't carry the massive payload a B-17 could and they're too large and slow to do close air support bombing. However, I could possibly see it fulfilling a gunship role by mounting large howitzers on its underside to fire upon fortifications, large groups of troops, or infrastructure. It also functions as a terror weapon since I think from the ground a huge zeppelin looks more intimidating than a high altitude bomber that you likely can't even see
As for practicality I don't see it being a very good bomber, since it probably can't carry the massive payload a B-17 could and they're too large and slow to do close air support bombing. However, I could possibly see it fulfilling a gunship role by mounting large howitzers on its underside to fire upon fortifications, large groups of troops, or infrastructure. It also functions as a terror weapon since I think from the ground a huge zeppelin looks more intimidating than a high altitude bomber that you likely can't even see
If you had endless air suprememcy like the US has had in every war since Vietnam I could see that, but resuppling it would be a nightmare. Essentially you are describing an AC-130 that can stay in the loiter indefinetly. Though some drones can do 32 hours at a time, but with far less firepower. Sounds like an in between weapon. It would helpful to train your guns on a Mosque or some other civillian building that terrorist/insurgents love to hide in. Just sit there and wait for them to come out. Though a Zeppelin is not going to be exactly hardest to see for them.
A "real" Zeppelin did better than a mere catwalk, and with no need to go outside. The inner framework was laced by walkways, cabins, and other features, with the row of individual gas cells further inward. External "pods" contained the engines and control gondola, but the passenger cabins and cargo spaces were all inside the main structure. WWI Zeppelins included several machinegun stations at front, rear, top, and bottom, and had pretty close to 360 degree coverage in all axis. Attacking one with an airplane during the earlier years of the war was suicidal, even if you could fly high enough to catch them, until the firepower, operational ceiling, and speed of the airplane made it a more even fight by the end of the war. Your "what-if" is more like "been there, done that". Problem is, by the time they perfected it, the airplane had surpassed it. A 30 years earlier start on Zeppelin development could have resulted in it being a "wonder weapon" around the end of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th, instead of 14-18 years into the century.
Do you think it was technically possible to develop zeppelins in the late XIXth century, with regard to other required technologies? I am not very knowledgeable on the subject so I don't know. Combustion engines perhaps(weren't really available until the 1910's)?
Not really IMO, steam engines have a low power-to-weight ratio, that's why they were used in ships or trains but muchs less in cars or tractors.
It's supposed to be seen, it's not meant to send a subtle message, it's meant to say "cower in fear lesser beings! Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle zeppelin!"
Wait, wow, why didn't Germany do that in its bombing raids over the UK? Adding the paint would add quite a bit of weight, so that might have been the reason. I don't think Zeppelins were ever painted with anything more than decals.
Besides the obvious "static lift" offered by the buoyant gas in the cells, Zeppelins could get a very significant increase in payload capacity by "dynamic lift". Tilting the nose up a degree or two allowed such fast dirigibles as the Hindenburg to carry several additional tons of payload, on top of the weight of such amenities as a small grand piano, glass chandeliers, brass railings, and other extravagances for passenger comfort (on top of the weight of the luxury cabins, casino, restaurant, and so on). The system for "snagging" an additional few tons of intercontinental mail, and a set of pumps and hoses for collecting additional ballast while over a body of water at speed, could be substituted by taking on extra fuel and ammo or bomb payload while in flight, either by using a hook (as per the Hindenburg) or delivering it via a smaller "shuttle" airship.
By the middle of WWI, the Zeppelin was already in direct competition with heavier-than-air craft, but even less efficient steam engines or early diesels would have been adequate to power a Zeppelin to "naval" speeds at the turn of the 19th to 20th Centuries, if serious development had begun a decade or two sooner. We'd never see the big-gun "Battle Zeppelins" shown in that fanciful painting (far too much weight), but they did have the potential (utilized during WWI) to deliver bomb loads from altitudes which made them almost impervious to return fire, over operational distances that were absolutely unmatched by airplanes until the 1930s. The fact that gun and aircraft technologies advanced to make that impractical by late war does nothing to detract from its possibilities 10-30 years earlier.
If Zeppelins HAD been prioritized for development during the 1880s, there might have been enough time for the development of dedicated anti-Zeppelin weapons, culminating in totally unique forms of airship-versus-airship combat, perhaps with a distinction between "capital" class and "escort" class airships.
Incidentally, painting a Zeppelin black would have been counter-productive. Since they were generally spotted by their dark silhouette against the lighter background, painting them white on the undersides might have been more effective, even at night. The same technique was tried with ships, where eventually it was discovered that painting a ship white and illuminating it slightly actually made it a lot harder to detect at night from other ships, even though it made it stand out like a beacon against the dark water for any aircraft that happened to be in the general vicinity.
By the middle of WWI, the Zeppelin was already in direct competition with heavier-than-air craft, but even less efficient steam engines or early diesels would have been adequate to power a Zeppelin to "naval" speeds at the turn of the 19th to 20th Centuries, if serious development had begun a decade or two sooner. We'd never see the big-gun "Battle Zeppelins" shown in that fanciful painting (far too much weight), but they did have the potential (utilized during WWI) to deliver bomb loads from altitudes which made them almost impervious to return fire, over operational distances that were absolutely unmatched by airplanes until the 1930s. The fact that gun and aircraft technologies advanced to make that impractical by late war does nothing to detract from its possibilities 10-30 years earlier.
If Zeppelins HAD been prioritized for development during the 1880s, there might have been enough time for the development of dedicated anti-Zeppelin weapons, culminating in totally unique forms of airship-versus-airship combat, perhaps with a distinction between "capital" class and "escort" class airships.
Incidentally, painting a Zeppelin black would have been counter-productive. Since they were generally spotted by their dark silhouette against the lighter background, painting them white on the undersides might have been more effective, even at night. The same technique was tried with ships, where eventually it was discovered that painting a ship white and illuminating it slightly actually made it a lot harder to detect at night from other ships, even though it made it stand out like a beacon against the dark water for any aircraft that happened to be in the general vicinity.
Last edited:
Sadly for the idea of late 19th century war Zeppelins their actual capacity to carry large payloads was not good enough for effective area bombing and their attack height (given that they are too big and slow to avoid anti-Zeppelin fire with speed like a plane) too great for accurate target bombing they were never going to work as a means for direct attack on the enemy. That being said they had enormous potential to act in various auxilary roles such as reconnaissance. I could have seen a major role in both wars for anti-submarine work. Given they can watch a large area for extremely long periods of time, as well as carry a small payload of anti-submarine weapons they would have been nearly perfect spotters for subs. Particularly in WWI where u-boats normally attacked while surfaced and could only stay submerged for short periods of time a Zeppelin on watch would have made their job very hard indeed.
I suspect the main reason they were not used in this role (barring the handful deployed by the US) was that the cost of development and production was too high, however, if they had been more common due to earlier developments then they may well have been used in this role. Although they would also have made excellent spotters for German subs they are too slow and would have been easily destoyed by allied airpower.
As an additional aside, I read that when the first Zeppelin raids on Britain occured, people rushed out to watch them - hardly an effective terror weapon. In addition they were so inaccurate that some people belived that the Germans were trying to destroy Britains agriculture by bombing the fields!
I suspect the main reason they were not used in this role (barring the handful deployed by the US) was that the cost of development and production was too high, however, if they had been more common due to earlier developments then they may well have been used in this role. Although they would also have made excellent spotters for German subs they are too slow and would have been easily destoyed by allied airpower.
As an additional aside, I read that when the first Zeppelin raids on Britain occured, people rushed out to watch them - hardly an effective terror weapon. In addition they were so inaccurate that some people belived that the Germans were trying to destroy Britains agriculture by bombing the fields!
Maybe the first raid, but they ended up causing far more terror than they deserved. They also used just about every bombing attack victims (of which there were very few) for propaganda purposes.
Consider that the US refused to sell Helium to Germany due to political pressure by the UK. The UK public was still deathly afraid of a repeat of the WWI terror bombings, particularly with fireproof Zeppelins. That's why the Hindenburg ended up using Hydrogen as a lifting gas, which it was not designed for.